POWER OF BLOGS

Insight Center: Blogs

Subcontract Provision Requiring Subcontractor to Pass Through its Claims Does Not Prevent the Subcontractor From Suing to Recover Against Miller Act Bond

Pinnacle Crushing & Constr. LLC v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67965 (W.D. Wa. Apr. 23, 2018)

Author: Emily D. Anderson

7/05/2018

Read the full post at Constructlaw

Subcontract Provision Requiring Subcontractor to Pass Through its Claims Does Not Prevent the Subcontractor From Suing to Recover Against Miller Act Bond

The Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps), as owner, and Cherokee General Corporation (CGC), as prime contractor, entered into a contract (the Contract) in connection with work at the Yakima Training Center (the Project). CGC subcontracted with SCI Infrastructure (SCI) for certain work related to the Project (the SCI Subcontract), and SCI subcontracted with Pinnacle Crushing & Construction, LLC (Pinnacle) (the Pinnacle Subcontract). CGC obtained a Miller Act payment bond (the Bond) from Hartford Insurance Co. (the Surety) to provide coverage for labor and materials supplied in carrying out the work.

After the Corps terminated the Contract with CGC, CGC submitted a claim under the Contracts Disputes Act. As required by the SCI Subcontract, CGC asserted SCI’s pass through claims against the Corps, which included amounts allegedly owed to both SCI and Pinnacle.

Data protection laws have changed, so we have revised our Privacy Policy.

CLOSE